Low Energy Bulbs Can Cause Cancer, Along With Everything Else Ever Made.
Sat, Jan 5, 2008
The cyclical nature of the world has been expounded upon over the centuries by countless thinkers from Toynbee to drunken first year Philosophy majors.
While I may not be the world’s foremost philosopher or drunk, despite all my hard work on the latter, I’d like to contribute my own little interpretation of a specific cycle.
My own idea reflects to the pattern all scientific discoveries seem to exhibit. It is thus: First, a positive scientific discovery will be made. Then it will be blamed for causing cancer.
I was inspired to that particular bit of genius by a new report in which doctors suggest that the more intense light from low-energy light bulbs can exacerbate skin problems and potentially cause cancer.
Spectrum, a group of charities working with sufferers of light-sensitivity conditions issued the report with the British Association of Dermatologists. The report comes on the heels of a warning by the Migraine Action Association that said the bulbs’ more intense light can trigger migraines.
The groups’ complaint is with the government’s plan to phase out traditional light bulbs by 2011. The plan so far will completely ban traditional bulbs, with no allowances made for those who suffer from sensitivity to light. According to Spectrum, almost 350,000 people could have their health affected by the ban. They want the government to allow medical exemptions to the incandescent bulb ban.
Dr Colin Holden of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: ‘It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don’t exacerbate their condition. Photosensitive eruptions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer. It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can’t venture out in natural sunlight.’
Spectrum is beginning a campaign to raise awareness of the energy saving bulbs’ health effects, including the possibility they can lead to skin cancer. I’m going to go ahead and guess their campaign probably won’t involve a lot of outdoor advertising.
This story manages to perfectly combine two examples of modern day ridiculousness: cancer fear mongering and government idiocy. I can’t decide which is sillier. I’m thinking cancer fear mongering. It’s gotten to the point where we’re now concerned about light bulbs burning too brightly. Perhaps I should wear sunscreen when I venture from my bed.
Of course, there really should be exemptions to the incandescent bulb ban for medical reasons. If a light bulb can actually do someone harm, they shouldn’t have to use it. That being said, I don’t see this actually being a problem once someone actually brings it to the government’s attention. Maybe the new campaign will do just that.
If you want to find out all the latest interesting science news, why not subcribe to our RSS feed, we’ll even throw in a free album.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:37 am
I definitely agree that exceptions MUST be made for those with sensitivity to light.
I get headaches from florescent lights that are closer than 8 feet away which is hard to achieve in a home. I do get headaches from incandescent lights too but they only need to be at least 2 feet away to not give me a headache which is easily achieved.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I believe people with peculiar light sensitivities should be granted exceptions, although banning all types of incandescent light bulbs would make the prices skyrocket.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
A piece of wire in a vacuum resisting electricity is very efficient. All the energy that is consumed by such a device will be turned into a) light and b) heat. There is no where else for the energy to go. Assuming that you require light indoors when it is dark, the chances are that it will be wintertime and you will also have the heating on. Therefore having a light on will reduce the energy used in your heating system. Therefore there is absolutely nothing to be gained from having low energy lighting in the winter.
In the summer it is a different matter. You don’t want heat - you just want light. Surely the truly environmental solution would be to get up when it gets light and to go to bed before it gets dark. You wouldn’t really need any lights then!
Outside, of course, it is different again. Any heat generated by the lights is simply heating the sky. Should we just not do what Sir Patrick Moore desires and turn off lighting outside?
Paying around with low energy lighting is just wasting effort which would be best spent saving the earth in a more beneficial way!
January 7th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Wait, how is that a device that is meant to produce light efficient if it’s producing heat? If we’re using light bulbs to heat a home, how efficient is that compared regular heating? In the winter time, you still have to heat your home and I doubt shaving off a degree or two would be much use. Besides, that heat isn’t going to radiate throughout the house. Feeling cold? Why not put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat or using light bulbs to heat your house.
Do the topic of CFLs, I hope there’s technology out there to help those people who can’t stand them because incandescent lights aren’t that much better in the end. You use them more and here in Canada, we simply throw ours out in the garbage when they’ve gone through a few months of use. We don’t even bother recycling the glass and metal. They’re still considered disposable like razors. It’s awesome the amount of garabe we dump into th arctic.
January 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
For the record, the government’s bulb ban is nothing of the sort, merely a voluntary phase-out which the major retailers have signed up to. Incandescent bulbs will still be available in any shop or retailer that hasn’t signed up. Fudge fudge fudge.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
This post is as silly as the spectrum group itself. cfls are now avaialble in all color temperatures, including those that mimic incandescent ’soft white’ bulbs. light ‘intensity’ is mesured in lumens, which are printed on the box, and a lower (dimmer) light can be used if desired. does this group protesting cfls actually know ANYthing about lighting….for instance, have they been to their local hardware store?
and, by the time the group organizes enough to matter (if ever), cfl’s will be being phased out in favor of led’s, cold cathode and other more efficient light technologies.
it’s also true, as one commenter noted, that the government program is not a mandate.
altogether, a non-story. the only thing i’ve seen sillier lately is the post from Roland, below, completely misunderstanding the light/heat/efficiency issues involved.